HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20020521ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - MAY 21~ 2002
COMMISSIONER,STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ...................................... 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
BAVARIAN PUD AMENDMENT .......................................................................... 3
GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS
FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP/TIMESHARE LAND USE CODE
AMENDMENTS ....................................................................................................... 4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - MinUtes - MAY 21, 2002
Eric Cohen opened the regular Planning and Zoning Meeting at 4:35 p.m. in
Council Chambers with Ruth Kruger, Bert Myrin, Roger Haneman, Ron Erickson
and Steven Buettow. Jasmine Tygre was excused. Staff in attendance were:
Joyce Ohlson, James Lindt, Fred Jarman, Community Development; Jackie
Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER,STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ruth Kruger requested the difference in the definitions between a remodel and a
demolition, specifically regarding the project at Durant and Aspen. Joyce Ohlson
responded that demolition was over 50% of the structure. James Lindt noted that
the surface area of the exterior wails left had to be over 50% and the roof did not
count. Bert Myrin shared Ruth's concern on demolition and remodel.
Ron Erickson asked about the violation of the Caribou Alley. Joyce Ohlson
replied that a citation was issued and they had to appear in Municipal Court.
Roger Haneman reported that the Obermeyer COWOP meeting tomorrow was to
deal with the height and size of the building. The massing of the building was to
be kept along the street and not along the alley. The Concept 600 building
residents voiced concern for sunlight and noise from construction and a new
building. Haneman noted the new building would possibly be 5 stories. Ohlson
said that next week's P&Z work session would be a good time to bring in more
details that would be available. Ron Erickson stated that there was a need for the
lower cost commercial space in this town so he was all for maximizing density for
this project because it was in the S/C/I Zone. Erickson notedthat there was a
financial model, which looked at mixed-use buildings and how they work.
Ohlson mentioned the upcoming work sessions with P&Z and Council. The June
4th P&Z meeting included a Council work session at 4pm, a GMC meeting at 4:30
and then the regular P&Z following. OhlSon said that the vehicle for
Commissioner reports from COWOP meetings and other committee meetings
should be under the commissioner comments portion of the agenda.
Ohlson noted that Fred Jarman was leaving the City of Aspen and moving on to the
Garfield County Planning Department.
MINUTES
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes from the April
16, 2002 meeting. Ruth Kruger seconded. APPROVED 6-0.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - MAY 21, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING:
BAVARIAN PUD AMENDMENT
Eric Cohen opened the Bavarian PUD Amendment public hearing. Joyce OhlSon '
stated that the hearing would be continued to May 28th.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing for the
Bavarian PUD to May 28th. Ruth Kruger seconded. APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION LA~ USE 'CODE
AMENDMENTS
Eric Cohen opened the public hearing for the GMC Code amendment, james Lindt
explained that the purpose of the amendment was to remove the joint city/county
growth management commission from review of growth management system
applications within in the city and replace the review authority with the city
planning and zoning commission. Lindt said that pursuant to the land use code the
city planning and zoning is the recommending body to city council on all land use
code amendments. Staff identified all land use code language that gives GMQS
exemption review to the growth management commission and replaced that
language with the city of Aspen planning and zoning commission.
Staff referred the proposed code amendment to the county staff for continents and
they agreed with the city planning staff for the review authority change to the city
planning and zoning commission.
The GMQS scoring procedures were not amended at this time but will be included
in a larger GMQS discussion with staff; the GMQS standards were not being
amended at this time and met the review standards.
Ron Erickson questioned why the scoring process was not being changed since the
city was not involved in the county's major projects. Erickson stated that a joint
review on major projects that impacted the city wOuld be beneficial; he said that
anything that happened in the city really did not impact the county per se. Lindt
replied that the work session on June 25th would look at the GMQS review and
scoring.
Bert Myrin asked what drove the code to have the dual review. Lindt replied that it
was checks and balances to make sure that the growth occurred in proper places
with both jurisdictions in the review process. Joyce Ohlson noted that the city and
county shared the growth management buckets; the Aspen Area Community Plan
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - MAY 21, 2002
was adopted from growth management. Steven Buettow stated that there was more
competition for growth allotments with review and consideration with relative
merits from different points of view. Eric Cohen agreed with Ron on the scoring
for influence on county plans that were close to the city with impacts.
No public comments.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve P&Z ResolutiOn #15, series
2002, recommending City Council approve the proposed Land Use
Code Amendments to sections 26.226, Growth Management
Commission and 26.470 Growth Management QuOta System to allow
for the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission review
authority under the curren~ review and purview of the GMC for GMQS
Exemption Applications within the City of Aspen. Ruth Kruger
seconded. Roll Call vote: Haneman, yes; Myrin, yes; Buettow, yes;
Erickson, yes; Kruger, yes; Cohen, yes. APPROVE 6-0~
Erickson noted that this was a lot of work for one line ora text amendment; he
thanked James for his hard work.
PUBLIC HEARING:
FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP/TIMESHARE LAND USE CODE
AMENDMENTS
Eric Cohen opened the public hearing on Fractional Ownership/Timeshare Land
Use Code Amendments. Alan Richman said that the draft included many work
sessions and staff discussions. Richman said that Section 1, Chapter 26.590 had no
real changes; Section 26.590.020 was a new section with subsection B. This was a
second form of Timeshare, Exempt Timesharing.
Richman said that the issues and primary changes were to 26.590.030 Exempt
Timesharing, which could be applied to single-family dwelling units,
condominiumized duplex dwelling units and existing condominiumized multi-
family dwelling units with no more than 6 units in the project located in the LTR
zone district or Aspen Highlands Village PUD. This would allow the private
sector to go through the process. Richman noted that this was an activity that was
widespread but rather limited by zone district so that areas like Cemetery Lane and
Smuggler would be protected.
Richman said that any project could be divided into 6 estates, no covenants could
be conflicting, only properties that were in compliance with the current codes and
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION a Minutes -MAY 21, 2002
to comply with the zone district. If residents were displaced then 50% mitigation
for replacement was a provision.
Roger Haneman inquired as to the number of units that would qualify for this
exempt timeshare in the LTR zone. Fred Jarman responded that there were 7 in
multi-family structures that had been condominiumized with 6 or less units in the
LTR zone district (about 32 units). Jarman said in the RMF gone district there
were 18 structures eligible.
Ron Erickson asked where deed-restrictions came into play. Richman responded
that should be added to the private covenants or deed-restrictions. Bert Myrin
agreed with Ron on the deed-restrictions and voiced concern for mitigation for
residents being displaced. £rickson asked if the Association Would be responsible
for the property taxes or would the individual owners be responsible.
There was discussion of the signage placement regarding the management
company. Eric Cohen asked fora better definition of the eligibility of the project.
Jarman replied that there were a limited number in the LTR zones.
David Mylar, public, offered a suggestion on the operative terms of separate
projects; this would only apply to existing condominiumized units. Mylar said that
only 6 or less units would apply under this exemption. The condominium map
would determine the eligibility. Mylar stated that this exemption would be
beneficial to the community and the property owners that applied. This would
increase the vitality, density, occupancy, real estate transfer tax revenues and sales
tax revenues. Mylar said that there was a good balance to create a truly marketable
product in fractional interest. Mylar encouraged expansion of this exemption to
other commercial core zone districts within proximity to the LTR Zone. Mylar
stated that he has been involved in fractional ownership with the Timbers and the
Roaring Fork Club; he said that the objectives of a high quality product and new
people buying into the Aspen Community that might not be able to be here if it
weren't for the fractional ownership.
Scott Writer, public, said that it would be wise to allow for more than 6 units to be
owned by one owner because a large project was not being sold. Writer
encouraged the smaller buildings in the LTR zone to bring vitality.
Doug Deesenberg, public, stated that he concurred with Dave and Scott about
expanding the area but to also limit areas where there were second homes or tourist
accommodations. He said that the only properties that this would work for would
be luxury properties.
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- MinUtes - MAY 21~ 2002
Fonda Paterson, public, stated caution for expansion of the allowable area. She
noted that the West End had a rule of not allowing less than a six-month rental; it
wasn't enforced because many property management firms short termed some
houses. Paterson said that the houses that were used as lodges did not enhance the
neighborhood but demeaned the character of the neighborhood because there were
no long-term connections to the community.
Erickson said that there was no way to know how this would impact the
community and requested that this be re-reviewed in a year and a half for
expansion consideration. Kruger asked if there was multi-family replacement
mitigation. Richman replied that it was in the code. Richman said that if the units
were considered resident housing units (they work in the area and live in the
building); the applicant converting the units to timeshare must mitigate for those
impacts by replacing half of the bedrooms and half of the square footage. Kruger
asked what the number of units and buildings in the RMF zone district was.
Jarman replied that there were 18 buildings but he could not tell how many of the
structures had local residents living in them or the total number of units. Cohen
requested a map. Jarman suggested a stock analysis on a map. Ohlson noted that
they could only project which were actually occupied by locals.
There was discussion about the exemption category including condominiumized
buildings with 6 units or less, ownership of more than one building in the zone
district, there were a limited number of buildings/units available and the residential
replacement program.
Richman stated that in section .040 there were no changes. In section 26.590.050
there was a change to the application content that added a requirement to develop
registration with the Colorado Real Estate Commission. Erickson noted concern
for a management/operational plan to be included with the following: will it be
branded; will they be the managing agents and rental agents for the project; a
statement of intent; the number of hotbeds provided to the community. Richman
responded that the characteristics for a Timeshare Lodge included the operations
and management. Erickson answered that did not handle his concern; he wanted
the to know the management (branded, on-site, same rental & management).
Richman said that he would work on that aspect.
Writer said that the development community needed flexibility in terms of
identifying the branding; he said that the elements in 590.050 were good but they
shouldn't be imposed with too much detail at the conceptual level. Erickson
stated that he disagreed 100%; he wanted as much information as possible at the
conceptual level. Erickson said that there were two different processes when there
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION c Minutes~ MAY 21, 2002
was a limited review with a two-step approval process. Richman stated that Ron's
position was not reflected in these documents.
Fonda Paterson questioned "G"; she asked how it would apply to the conversion of
existing lodges. Richman replied that it would apply. Ohlson noted the State
requirements. Richman stated that anyone selling or marketing timeshare needed
to be registered with the State.
Richman stated that 26.590.060 Characteristics of a Timeshare Lodge
Development had changes from prior discussions. In '~A" the mandatory physical
elements the front desk would be open during regular business hours to
accommodate walk-in rentals. The CC (Commercial Core) zone district would be
the only appropriate zone district to accommodate timeshares to include a bar,
restaurant or retail facility. Section B2 was re-written to reflect a positive note
shallpermit walk-in rental units. Section B4 was new suggesting that owner not
occupy any estate for more than 30 consecutive days. Section C2 was another
option for a homeowners association to not allow any personalization to the units.
Section C5 was a new option that exchange programs were a good option and that
new trails might be picked up. Erickson asked about A3 meeting areas and retail
was to be replaced with public places. Erickson wanted to quantify A3 to read far
enough in advance.
There was discussion of the 1/7 estate, which equaled 52 days; limitati°n of 30
consecutive days; number of ownership shares allowed; what were the minimum
standards allowable; options and guideline for the timeshare numbers; optional
practices and substitutions.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting to 7:30 pm.
Ruth Kruger seconded. APPROVED 6-0.
Writer asked if owners' guests were defined also as exchangers. That language
would be added. Writer said that they might consider encouraging residential
turning into timeshare and provide the sufficient amount of flexibility so that the
property wasn't limited.
There was discussion of what unit was occupied or owned; operational conditions;
de-personalization of a timeshare unit; not limiting the purchase of a certain unit;
price difference in units with certain views.
Charlie Paterson stated that the purchase had to be done with a deed; a certain unit
was purchased but that doesn't mean that you will occupy that unit. Paterson said
that the purchaser purchased a particular unit but could occupy a different one.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - MinUtes - MAY 21, 2002
There was discussion of the conversion of town homes, condom/niums and single-
family homes to timeshare with concerns for taxes and positive fiscal impacts for
the city.
Richman said the section 26.590.070 for the review standards only had one change
with the affordable housing requirements language was added for the residential
multi-family replacement program; there must be mitigation if residents are
displaced. Erickson stated that he has heard about "the model" but would like to
see the model. Richman replied that was the last point, to review the model with
the finance department.
Richman stated that section .080 had no changes.
Richman stated that Section 2 was the definition of timeshare lodge with 2
changes. Each unit shall be subdivided into no less than seven time span or
interval estates was new to insure mm over and occupancy. Richman said that for
the purposes of the code a time-share lOdge unit may compete in the growth
management system but to contain a kitchen means it is a dwblling unit and then it
was subject to the UBC requirements.
Richman stated that there were no changes to Section 3 the LP Zone District;
section 4 added the language including timeshare lodge unit.
Richman said that Sections 5 and 6 removed "timesharing" from 5 and added it to
6 as a permitted use.
Richman said that Section 7 was the big one with the LTR zone district with
timeshare. The existing multi-family buildings were permitted in this zone district.
The commission requested a map with analysis and the number of properties
(units) in the RMF, CC, CL and LP.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing and
discussion until June 4, 2002. Bert Myrin seconded~ APPROVED 6-0.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved adjourn at 7:30 pm. Ron Erickson
seconded. APPROVED 6-0.
an,'Deputy City Clerk
8